Creationism Vs. Evolution: The Debate Is Live Tonight online at 7pm- http://www.npr.org

[PeterMP]

I did not write that it was proven.

Ok let's say you are sending a probe to Mars. You really want to get one thing measured right, so you send 3 different probes that measure it in different ways. All 3 readings come back the same. Is that a logical, good enough proof to use?

No!

 

Which is why scientists would express results not as an absolute, but in the context of a p-value.

 

And that's even in the context that the assumptions that underlie science are true!

 

Even if you want to say something has been "proven" by science (and I'll quote from the National Academy of Sciences with respect to uncertainty in science again if you'd like) that still generally assumes that the assumptions that science are based on are true.

 

What you are generally trying to do is use scientific "knowledge" (that the sun has been rising for billions of years)  as evidence for something nonscientific (i.e. the assumptions underlying science).

 

So more bad logic!

[alexey]

Ok let's say you are sending a probe to Mars. You really want to get one thing measured right, so you send 3 different probes that measure it in different ways. All 3 readings come back the same. Is that a logical, good enough proof to use?

No!

Which is why scientists would express results not as an absolute, but in the context of a p-value.

And that's even in the context that the assumptions that underlie science are true

I asked "good enough to use".

Can anything be proven? If yes, how?

[PeterMP]

You seem to suggest that science makes evolution true or that science is the only way to discover evolution.

Evolution is true with or without science. And I'm sure you can imagine other ways of discovering evolution.

Without science there is no evidence that evolution is true.

 

If the assumptions that underlie science are wrong, then there is no evidence for evolution.  If there is no evidence that evolution is true, then your argument has no evidence supporting it.

[alexey]

Without science there is no evidence that evolution is true.

...

I think this statement is clearly false. We can agree to disagree and stop it here.

[PeterMP]

I asked "good enough to use".

Can anything be proven? If yes, how?

More not being precise on your part.

 

Good enough to use for what?

 

How close are the values together?

 

What is the p-value?

 

Good enough to do something else that depends on assuming the assumptions that underlie science, probably.

 

On the human level, I think we are limited to subjective knowledge.

 

http://www.sevenoaksphilosophy.org/downloads/biography_and_background.pdf

 

**EDIT**

And I think there is a quantum mechanical argument that can be made that is true too!

 

I think this statement is clearly false. We can agree to disagree and stop it here.

 

What evidence for evolution do you see that is not scientific?

 

If you think the idea is wrong, present your argument.

 

**EDIT**

I will admit that we can get into situations where the assumptions that underlie science are somewhat true and somewhat false so some science is true and some is false.

[alexey]

I insist believing in science in terms of using it to justify actions requires a belief for which there is no proof.

...

On the human level, I think we are limited to subjective knowledge.

If we put these two together, are you saying either "absolute knowledge" or "belief for which there is no proof" are required to justify actions with science?

[PeterMP]

If we put these two together, are you saying either "absolute knowledge" or "belief for which there is no proof" are required to justify actions with science?

 

If you have a point make it!

 

There's no need for 20 questions!

[alexey]

...

What evidence for evolution do you see that is not scientific?

...

Some people may just compare us to monkeys, figure it out, and say monkeys are the evidence. Is that allowed?

[PeterMP]

Some people may just compare us to monkeys, figure it out, and say monkeys are the evidence. Is that allowed?

How are you comparing us to monkeys?

 

Are you making repeated observations?

 

I'd also say that's a judgement that's being made with 20/20 hindsight.

 

If there was evidence that happened before Darwin, I'd be more willing to buy that argument, but I don't think that happened.

 

I think you are basically making an argument that is based on science and trying to leave the science out.

[alexey]

How are you comparing us to monkeys?

 

Are you making repeated observations?

 

I'd also say that's a judgement that's being made with 20/20 hindsight.

 

If there was evidence that happened before Darwin, I'd be more willing to buy that argument, but I don't think that happened.

 

I think you are basically making an argument that is based on science and trying to leave the science out.

Just say it is possible to discover evolution and use that knowledge without having scientific proof.

[PeterMP]

Just say it is possible to discover evolution and use that knowledge without having scientific proof.

We don't have scientific proof NOW!

 

I think it is exceedingly unlikely that anybody would have come up with the concept of evolution without science, and any evidence would be extremely flimsy.

 

In all the time I've been part of these threads, I've never seen anybody suggest there was non-scientific evidence for evolution, AND I see no reason to believe that your "compare us to monkey" isn't actually science.

 

And I don't see any real value in the context of your larger from the idea, hey we are similar to monkeys and so maybe we came from them.

 

That isn't what evolution is and for example doesn't describe the process at all.

[alexey]

... 

In all the time I've been part of these threads, I've never seen anybody suggest there was non-scientific evidence for evolution, AND I see no reason to believe that your "compare us to monkey" isn't actually science.

...

I insist believing in science in terms of using it to justify actions requires a belief for which there is no proof.

Can I use evolution to justify actions if I accept "compare us to monkey" as a sufficient proof for it?

[s0crates]

I'm not sure of your point here.

If we are willing to assume that evolution is true, which requires that we assume that the assumptions that underlie science are true, I don't see another reasonable argument.

Science is the result of evolution.

If you are not willing to make the above assumptions, then you have issues.

Not exactly. If I assume what empirical science assumes (roughly, that the universe is law-like in its operations), then I can deduce that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (heredity + variety + time + selection = adaptation) is true.

Like so:

1. There are mountains of empirical evidence supporting Darwin's hypothesis (observation).*

2. Observation yields knowledge of a law-like universe (this is the assumption, not evolution).

3. Therefore, Darwin's hypothesis is true.

*We observe things like evolution in the fossil record, DNA evidence connecting lineages, the variety within a genome (consider the varieties of domestic dog that have come from grey wolves), the time it takes for tectonic plates to move and grand canyons to form, etc.

The upshot here is that once you make the assumptions of science, you can make knowledge claims based off those assumptions, which are not assumptions themselves, but rather follow from them.

We've established this. The question is now about how the assumption is justified. Now you can be skeptical and say it isn't justified, but I'm not sure I like the consequences of such a radical skepticism.

I don't think alexey is actually denying the assumption, he is trying to explain how we arrive at such a principle (and here there might be disagreement, although it's hard to think of a better explanation than that it emerged by an evolutionary process).

Now I'm actually more interested in the implications of the principle itself (to give an example you might relate to: Newton, Spinoza, and Einstein thought that the laws of nature were divine, roughly that God was the laws of nature).

[s0crates]

I think it is exceedingly unlikely that anybody would have come up with the concept of evolution without science, and any evidence would be extremely flimsy.

In all the time I've been part of these threads, I've never seen anybody suggest there was non-scientific evidence for evolution, AND I see no reason to believe that your "compare us to monkey" isn't actually science.

And I don't see any real value in the context of your larger from the idea, hey we are similar to monkeys and so maybe we came from them.

First, evolution is true or false whether we know it or not.

Second, people believed evolution was true long before the rise of empirical science. Darwin's unique theory wasn't evolution (a much older theory), but rather a theory of how it happens (by natural selection).

Now Darwin arrived at his theory by empirical method (observation), and his theory is supported by all the additional empirical evidence (repeated observation). So, if we accept the assumption of science that observation yields knowledge, then we accept Darwin's theory.

Lastly, I agree with you that this has gotten to be out of context, but then again the thread is purportedly about evolution.

[PeterMP]

Can I use evolution to justify actions if I accept "compare us to monkey" as a sufficient proof for it?

Yes you can, but some people might say that the evidence does not match the strength of conviction for actions, especially depending on your actions.

 

I've never suggested to anybody (including people that don't believe in evolution) that they couldn't act on what they as being evidence.

Not exactly. If I assume what empirical science assumes (roughly, that the universe is law-like in its operations), then I can deduce that Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection (heredity + variety + time + selection = adaptation) is true.

Like so:

1. There are mountains of empirical evidence supporting Darwin's hypothesis (observation).*

2. Observation yields knowledge of a law-like universe (this is the assumption, not evolution).

3. Therefore, Darwin's hypothesis is true.

*We observe things like evolution in the fossil record, DNA evidence connecting lineages, the variety within a genome (consider the varieties of domestic dog that have come from grey wolves), the time it takes for tectonic plates to move and grand canyons to form, etc.

The upshot here is that once you make the assumptions of science, you can make knowledge claims based off those assumptions, which are not assumptions themselves, but rather follow from them.

We've established this. The question is now about how the assumption is justified. Now you can be skeptical and say it isn't justified, but I'm not sure I like the consequences of such a radical skepticism.

I don't think alexey is actually denying the assumption, he is trying to explain how we arrive at such a principle (and here there might be disagreement, although it's hard to think of a better explanation than that it emerged by an evolutionary process).

Now I'm actually more interested in the implications of the principle itself (to give an example you might relate to: Newton, Spinoza, and Einstein thought that the laws of nature were divine, roughly that God was the laws of nature).

 

Okay, I have issues with this, but I'll set aside for now to see where this is going and maybe my problem will go away.

 

That's fine, but doesn't it get us to the same place.

 

We have an assumption, and we don't have a good way to measure how good the evidence that supports that assumption is.

 

How does it end up applying to any problem differently?

[PeterMP]

First, evolution is true or false whether we know it or not.

Second, people believed evolution was true long before the rise of empirical science. Darwin's unique theory wasn't evolution (a much older theory), but rather a theory of how it happens (by natural selection).

Now Darwin arrived at his theory by empirical method (observation), and his theory is supported by all the additional empirical evidence (repeated observation). So, if we accept the assumption of science that observation yields knowledge, then we accept Darwin's theory.

Lastly, I agree with you that this has gotten to be out of context, but then again the thread is purportedly about evolution.

 

See I learned something!

 

I knew the idea that evolution pre-dated Darwin, but I didn't think it went back that far (I read some wiki pages).

 

Though I'd be curious if the people that weren't actually doing things based on science.  People did science before it was formalized.  For example, I saw one person was making proposals about warm blooded animals.  I think we can agree that the understanding of warm blooded animals required repeated observations and comparisons.

 

In the context of this conversation, while some people had ideas, the ideas didn't come widely accepted (i.e. the evidence was not considered very strong).

 

I also agree that evolution either happened or it did not happen.

 

I also don't mind where the thread has gone.

 

My point was to alexey in the context of his larger argument (that science is superior to a belief in god because of things like required assumptions).

[d0ublestr0ker0ll]

Nevermind.

[alexey]

My point was to alexey in the context of his larger argument (that science is superior to a belief in god because of things like required assumptions).

God is an incoherent made up idea. I would not even compare it with actual systems of epistemology. God does not make enough sense to play that game.

If you want to argue otherwise, tell me what is god and how you know that.

Now when it comes to assumptions of science... You seem to have a very peculiar argument. You say that science requires assumptions, and therefore everything that can be called science must require assumptions. Do you see anything wrong with that construct?

[PeterMP]

God is an incoherent made up idea. I would not even compare it with actual systems of epistemology. God does not make enough sense to play that game.

If you want to argue otherwise, tell me what is god and how you know that.

Now when it comes to assumptions of science... You seem to have a very peculiar argument. You say that science requires assumptions, and therefore everything that can be called science must require assumptions. Do you see anything wrong with that construct?

I'm not particularly interested in convincing you that my concept of God is true or makes sense.  As I've already said, I believe that human knowledge is personal in nature (and I think evolution and quantum mechanics actually support that argument).  I'm especially not interested in trying to convince somebody that I don't really know over the internet that doesn't even take on an honest agnostic view point (i.e. saying "God is an incoherent made up idea" is not an honest agnostic view point.) in God.

 

I have two kids, a wife, a job, and other things I'd rather be doing.  I'm ONLY here in the context of explaining what science is and what it isn't. 

 

If you want to claim you can actually support those claims have at it!

 

My argument isn't very peculiar.  It is laid out pretty well at the Cal Berkley web site that I've already posted:

 

Go back and read it again.

 

Science relies on assumptions.  Science has done incredible things.  The assumptions aren't controversial.

 

I agree with all of those statements and have made similar statements through out multiple threads now.  They aren't really saying the assumptions have been proven or even there is good evidence for them.

 

I've said in other threads most people believe the assumptions are true.  That makes them so they aren't controversial.

 

The fact that most people believe it though doesn't make it true and isn't actually good evidence that it's true.

 

And s0crates is telling you the same thing.  He wants to get beyond that and have another conversation (that I'm not quite clear what it is), but he's telling you that science (and even induction) are based on underlying assumptions.

 

But if you don't believe that, I'd suggest that you even try PMing some other members that you might respect here.

 

You and Corciagh seem to have some very similar views.  I suspect that he will tell you that my argument is correct based on the minimal amount of interactions I've with him in these types of conversations (he tends to drop out when pushed even minimally on the topic, which suggests that he understand it).

 

Seek outside opinions from people that you trust and that you don't know a priori agree with you.  

 

I ran your argument (I literally copied and pasted some of your posts) by an agnostic old friend of mine from high school that I've agreed along time ago to agree to disagree with to make sure that I wasn't missing something in your arguments.

[alexey]

I'm not particularly interested in convincing you that my concept of God is true or makes sense. As I've already said, I believe that human knowledge is personal in nature (and I think evolution and quantum mechanics actually support that argument). I'm especially not interested in trying to convince somebody that I don't really know over the internet that doesn't even take on an honest agnostic view point (i.e. saying "God is an incoherent made up idea" is not an honest agnostic view point.) in God.

I am actually being agnostic when I say that I do not know what the concept "existence of god" means.

Agnosticism is typically understood as dealing with existence of god. I think assuming that the concept "existence of god" is coherent would be too generous.

I have two kids, a wife, a job, and other things I'd rather be doing. I'm ONLY here in the context of explaining what science is and what it isn't.

My argument isn't very peculiar. It is laid out pretty well at the Cal Berkley web site that I've already posted:

Go back and read it again.

Science relies on assumptions. Science has done incredible things. The assumptions aren't controversial.

You started with a claim that science relies on assumptions and ended up saying this about any form of thinking.

Then you said science (and thus any form of thinking) relies on things for which there is no proof.

When I offered subjective proof, you said that's not good enough, need logical proof. When we explored it further, you started requiring "absolute" proof and said its impossible.

Sounds like you are defining your way to success.

Do all forms of thinking require assumptions?

If we accept lack of absolute knowledge, what is the problem with using coherence across different modalities as proof?

...

I've said in other threads most people believe the assumptions are true. That makes them so they aren't controversial.

Replace "believe" with "accept," and I am on board.

The fact that most people believe it though doesn't make it true and isn't actually good evidence that it's true.

Replace "believe" with "accept," and you do not have this problem.

And s0crates is telling you the same thing. He wants to get beyond that and have another conversation (that I'm not quite clear what it is), but he's telling you that science (and even induction) are based on underlying assumptions.

He seems interested in discussing differences between believing and accepting, and so am I.

You are the one trying to put "belief" at the bottom of all systems so that you can stick your god in there.

Without god, you would have no problem with me accepting premises instead of believing assumptions.

[PeterMP]

I am actually being agnostic when I say that I do not know what the concept "existence of god" means.

Agnosticism is typically understood as dealing with existence of god. I think assuming that the concept "existence of god" is coherent would be too generous.

I was more focused on the made up part.

 

You started with a claim that science relies on assumptions and ended up saying this about any form of thinking.

Then you said science (and thus any form of thinking) relies on things for which there is no proof.

When I offered subjective proof, you said that's not good enough, need logical proof. When we explored it further, you started requiring "absolute" proof and said its impossible.

Sounds like you are defining your way to success.

Do all forms of thinking require assumptions?

If we accept lack of absolute knowledge, what is the problem with using coherence across different modalities as proof?

I never said anything about logical proof. You did and I made the distinction between your posts on proof and bad logic. I never joined the words logic and proof. In providing your "proof", you used bad logic.

I've also said that I'm fine with subjective judgments (I don't like the use of the word proof there because I think again you are going to have issues with it not being precise enough).

If you want to say that you look like a monkey and that is good enough evidence that you come from a monkey for you to carry out some action (e.g. eat like a monkey), I'm fine with that.

Just don't expect other people to look at the evidence and agree with you and start eating like a monkey too.

 

Replace "believe" with "accept," and I am on board.

Replace "believe" with "accept," and you do not have this problem.

He seems interested in discussing differences between believing and accepting, and so am I.

You are the one trying to put "belief" at the bottom of all systems so that you can stick your god in there.

Without god, you would have no problem with me accepting premises instead of believing assumptions.

I don't have a problem with accepting premises NOW. I don't have a problem with using the word accept there. I don't have a problem with using "justified confidence".

I only have a problem when you start trying to make distinctions using those types of words.

When you say, for A I'm going to use this word and for B I'm going to use this other word and that shows A is different than B, then I start to have a problem.

When that happens, I'm going to ask why. What is the difference between those words that results in some sort of distinction?

I've never said you had to use the word faith or belief. I never said you couldn't use the word justified confidence.

I've simply asked you to explain why that choice of words should be applied to one thing and not the other.

 

And certainly the idea of assumptions isn't peculiar with respect to science.  Again, that's what the Berkely page actually talks about!

[PeterMP]

From my perspective, there are very generally three broad categories by which the assumptions that underlie science are wrong (and with varying degrees):

 

1.  There is a creator/designer that wishes to hide their existence and has created a "universe" that is very different than the "reality".  This could be in the context of a "trickster god" or a simulators that are doing their best to hide their presence.  The system has been designed and our memories might not even be accurate.  It is possible that in our real time the simulation started 2 minutes ago, and our memories are just "pre-programmed".

 

In this context, the assumptions that underlie science are wrong, and the idea that we should do X (e.g. eat like them) because we evolved from monkeys because we looked like monkeys are wrong.

 

The idea that the past predicts the future is likely wrong because the past isn't real, and the entity(ies) can change it to "hide" themselves (i.e. stop, go back, edit).

 

2.   There is a higher power (god or simulators) that has created a "universe" for us to be in, and the creation of the universe is "honest".  The higher power entities might beyond the laws of the universe, but we are not.  In this context, the assumptions that underlie science will be generally true unless for some reason the higher power decides to intervene in some manner.

 

In this context, the assumptions that underlie science are generally likely to be true, and the idea that we should do X because we evolved from monkeys because we look like them is also likely to be true.

 

But the scientific information that underlies the same idea is also likely true.

 

And generally the past should predict the future.

 

3.  There are no higher powers, but no "natural laws" actually exist.  The universe is (part of) a random system.  The system MIGHT be possible of maintaining local (in the context of time and/or space) order for what from our perspectives are very long periods of time (but given a large enough system that wouldn't be surprising or even unlikely).

 

In this context, the science that supports evolution might be "true", and the idea that we evolved from monkey because we look like monkeys might also be true.

 

The past at some time scales will not predict the future and on a longer/larger scales (in terms of distance and/or space) science will "fail" whether it has evolved or not.  Science is okay for explaining our universe right here and right now.

 

Under this system (and realistically all of them), you can imagine different scenarios.  For example, you can imagine a random system where the changes are slow (though realistically this wouldn't really be a random system and would suggest a natural law) or fast (the same as the slow system), or both (a truely random system).

 

Which means that quickly there could be a drastic change in the weak nuclear force and we'd all be instantly annhilated or things would change slowly and we'd see evolutionary responses to those changes (or something in between where it is fast enough to kill us before there can be evolutionary responses).

 

Or we could all be instantly changed into very smart marine mammals with matching memories and believe we had evolved from dolphins.

 

Generally, I don't see an advantage of saying that we've evolved from monkeys without using science as compared to using science.

 

In places where science is likely to fail badly, the same is true for the non-scientific conclusion.

[alexey]

From my perspective, there are very generally three broad categories by which the assumptions that underlie science are wrong (and with varying degrees):

1. There is a creator/designer that wishes to hide their existence

...

The idea that the past predicts the future is likely wrong because the past isn't real, and the entity(ies) can change it to "hide" themselves (i.e. stop, go back, edit).

2. There is a higher power (god or simulators) that has created a "universe" for us to be in, and the creation of the universe is "honest". ...

But the scientific information that underlies the same idea is also likely true.

And generally the past should predict the future.

3. There are no higher powers, but no "natural laws" actually exist. The universe is (part of) a random system.

...

In this context, the science that supports evolution might be "true", and the idea that we evolved from monkey because we look like monkeys might also be true.

The past at some time scales will not predict the future and on a longer/larger scales (in terms of distance and/or space) science will "fail" whether it has evolved or not. Science is okay for explaining our universe right here and right now.

Fact: past predicts the future.

That is a fact of this thing we are living in, simulation or not. Yes an alien may jump out in the end and say "gotcha". That only changes the context of facts that we observe.

we could all be instantly changed into very smart marine mammals with matching memories and believe we had evolved from dolphins.

This is a strange statement because it could be used to support any argument.

How does this possibility impact your thinking?

[PeterMP]

Fact: past predicts the future.

That is a fact of this thing we are living in, simulation or not. Yes an alien may jump out in the end and say "gotcha". That only changes the context of facts that we observe.

This is a strange statement because it could be used to support any argument.

How does this possibility impact your thinking?

 

I think, at the minimum, you want to be more precise about your answer.  I'm assuming you don't want to claim that if I flip a coin today and it comes up heads that if I flip it tomorrow it must come up heads.

 

I suspect AT BEST you want to be more precise with your statement and say that for X type of events that the past predicts the future (with Y certainty).

 

More generally, do know that the weak nuclear force isn't going to randomly change into some other value tomorrow?

 

How?

 

Is there something in the past that would predict that can happen?

 

That specific concept doesn't really affect my thinking at all.  I do think about the concept that we may (greatly) over estimate the idea of "natural laws" and we should consider how we might go about detecting such a situation and what that might/could mean for the human race.

 

Do you want to try and connect your post at all to the previous conversation of using science vs. not using science to say something about the evolution of humans?

[alexey]

I suspect AT BEST you want to be more precise with your statement and say that for X type of events that the past predicts the future (with Y certainty).

Actually, in this case I think we must agree on the big picture before we try to get more precise.

At a minimum, further discussion requires agreement that there is no reason to think we are about to turn into dolphins.

More generally, do know that the weak nuclear force isn't going to randomly change into some other value tomorrow?

How?

Is there something in the past that would predict that can happen?

That depends on what evidence you are willing to accept.

It takes us back to, at a minimum, a need to agree that there is no reason to think we are about to turn into dolphins.

That specific concept doesn't really affect my thinking at all. I do think about the concept that we may (greatly) over estimate the idea of "natural laws" and we should consider how we might go about detecting such a situation and what that might/could mean for the human race.

Do you want to try and connect your post at all to the previous conversation of using science vs. not using science to say something about the evolution of humans?

On one hand you propose a possibility of us turning into dolphins as a meaningful point, on the other hand you say it does not affect your thinking. I agree with the other hand and propose that we stop bringing up things that do not affect our thinking.

I am trying to say that things you call "assumptions of science" are actually "facts". Science merely formalizes some of these facts as premises.

(Yes they are facts of whatever "reality" we inhabit, they may not be facts of "one true reality", if we are really dolphins)